So an iffy signal is one that is not spot-on, sounds a little good (generally more higher toned and smooth than not) but isn't a perfect "dig me" signal. Knowing iffy signals with your metal detector is being able to tell what's trash and what's just barely better than a trash signal. It's a finer tuning of using your machine and your brain.

The two Indian Heads and two Wheats I dug from one site are perfect examples. Suzanne and I both hit this area of the park hard. Multiple hunts, gridding, etc. But

They can be found, but are not easy to identify. I've located about five. All of mine have been in pocket spills with other coins. Sometimes there's enough detail to make our the bust of Lincoln or you can see the edges of the struck up rim, but not always.

This slangy phrase, "treasure hunter" or worse, "TH'er" is often seen in metal detecting literature. The term seems great for the marketing of metal detectors to those who think they can get rich quick.

"Treasure hunter" brings up visions of Mel Fisher, pieces-of-eight and the Atocha, but also can make a negative impression when trying to get permission to use our metal detectors on private property.

By using this grandiose term to describe our searching we put the public off in several ways. The first

Well, a year later I am ready to cover part 2 of my blog on finding nickels.

My hypothesis at the end of the last blog post was: Would opening the FE all the way from top to bottom for 12-13-14 result in more nickels? Is the FE value of nickels the trick? That would explain my friend's result with using Relic mode. It would also tend to support my supposition that the nickel "halo" is causing the nickels to read lower than FE 12 and more like/closer to iron. This will be by next experiment... which will be covered in Part 2.

Did opening the FE all the way from top to bottom for 12-13-14 result in more nickels? No, not really. They all tended to stay right around the 12 line and in the accepted range for coins in

These are the finds of my friend,Terry Barnhart (Goes4ever on the online forums). He was a Minelab X-Terra 70 wizard, but upgraded to the Minelab E-Trac this year. I think his finds, all made near his home in Van Wert, Ohio and even at sites he thought he had hunted out with the X-Terra are a phenomenal example of what someone can find in Ohio with the right equipment and the right mindset. He met and surpassed many of his detecting goals for the year, over 100 Indian Head cents, over 100 silver coins including two Seated Liberty and a gold class ring and a wide variety of relics.

Terry said, "I had the X-terra 70 for about a year and a half and my local Minelab dealer told me I'd do better with an E-Trac. I thought he was nuts, how could I do better? I was doing exceptionally well

Just as the weather gets colder and the days get shorter, I have the best month of the year! Lots of firsts for me, and these are firsts in 20 years of detecting! Seated coin (dime), fatty Indian (1862), a Chinese cash coin, and a three ringer minie ball.

And on top of that, four large coppers, a two cent piece, 21 Indian heads, three shield nickels, two V nickels, five buffalo nickels - all with dates, 18 silver dimes, 1899 Barber quarter, four old

Well, I was out on Dec. 31 in the snow looking for silver coin #300. I came home with a pocket of clad, that last one was just too elusive.

So, now I take stock and look back at a really fabulous year of detecting thanks to the Minelab E-Trac, which has definitely paid for iteslf in just 9 months (I started the detecting year mid-March with my Minelab Explorer SE).

$349.63 in clad coinsOver 4,700 total coins and tokens.299 silver coins, 1244 wheat cents.Dozens of rings, most silver, two gold.

2009 was my 19th year of detecting, but by far this was truly the best year ever. In 2009, I found my first large cent and oldest coin, dated 1820. Then just a few weeks later, a second large

Most of the online forum conversations I start about nickels either get no responses or a bunch of defensive talk about how the E-Trac finds plenty of nickels. In less trashy sites, I'm sure picking out nickel signals is a breeze, and if you run wide open and "dig all" I'm sure that works too. I've found some old nickels with the E-Trac, but nowhere near what I did with some of my older machines in the past.

Overall the buzz in the online forums is that while the E-Trac is a silver slayer, it is weak (but not useless) on nickels (and theoretically gold). My impression is that this is true. Air testing

"How come I am not digging really deep targets with (my detector).The deepest I dug was about six inches and on the videos they're digging (coins at) like 11". Are there specific settings for digging deep coins...?"

I saw this post on the TreasureNet forum and it got me thinking. I often read these discussions online about detector depth. Way back when, depth was the "next big thing" a detector could offer. The marketing started to be all about depth. Now here we are and most modern detectors

It seems to be easy to go accessory crazy with detecting. I think many times people who are not able to spend a lot of time detecting, instead start buying detecting accessories. Maybe these detectorists are not having much luck and think a new machine or a new coil is just the thing they need to make better finds.

When it comes to coils, this is a tough one to answer. Certainly for different types of detecting, having a smaller or larger coil can be an advantage. But 90% of the time the stock coil will give you good results for coinshooting.

There are two main types of coils available, concentric and double-d (DD). Knowing which type your detector uses helps you understand how to get the most out of it. A concentric coil puts out a cone-shaped field (shaped like a O), the DD field is more like the "center slice" of the concentric (shaped like an I).

There are quite a few different types of metal detector hobbyists.Seems the types of targets desired determine the types of detecting you do.Naturally, where you live plays a huge part in determining which kind of detectorist you are.Someone seeking colonial relics in Utah is going to have a pretty challenging and miserable experience!

What types of metal targets are out there to be found?Coins, relics, jewelry and ores are what all immediately come to mind.Ohioans are blessed with good opportunities to find three of the four.Not many gold nuggets around here, though I have heard stories of some people panning for gold

I've just put the finishing touches on organizing the metal detecting club links on my website. I created an entire list of defunct or clubs of unknown status. As I was researching and composing, a million ideas flew through my head about detecting clubs so I thought I'd set a few down here in a bit of a ramble.

First idea is leadership. Someone has to want to do it and inspire others to participate. It takes time and commitment. This is no small thing to ask for people who are trying find time to detect, hold down a job and have a home/family life. So, besides a leader, there need to be some

This is a follow up to the question, “Are newer machines the key to older coins?" Online forum posters brought up operating frequencies and gold, so this addresses these two topics.

Looking at some online resources: "Lower frequencies penetrate more deeply but higher frequencies are more sensitive to smaller targets." "Different metals respond better to different frequencies which is why all gold detectors run at 15 khz and up." "The lower the freq. such as 3 Khz will be sensitive in detecting copper and silver targets. Higher freq. such as 15 to 60 Khz will

A topic as old as the ages. Here's the simple statement that people read too late or don't believe. Cleaned old coins are 99% of the time worth LESS than uncleaned coins.

Let's do silver coins first, as this is where I see the most damage being done: If you find a silver coin (dated 1964 or earlier for most US coins) with your metal detector, with soil stuck on the surface of the coin, rubbing it in the field is as bad as cleaning it. The soil is VERY abrasive and leaves hairline scratches, the same as many harsh cleaning methods. Regardless of the condition of the coin, poor to mint state, soil rubbed across the surface will leave scratches that downgrade any potential value the coin may have. Don't rub silver coins fresh from the ground.

So you're saying to yourself, so then, Mr. Smarty Pants, how do I get the dirt off this coin so I

I am saddened by the demise of the local detector dealer. The cheery faces shown beaming behind fully stocked multi-line counters in the old detecting books are gone. Some now retired, some deceased, and for those left it's been harder and harder for them to make ends meet.

All of us in the metal detecting community bear some of the blame for the end of the local shop. Manufacturers have squeezed the little guys, requiring larger minimums and greater sales volumes - offering greater discounts to mass merchandisers. Consumers have been driven to the internet looking for the lowest price, and relying on online forums for information.

But beyond this, I feel there is a Code of Honor. Honor is trustworthiness, one's character, and how one reflects honesty, respect, integrity and fairness. This is more than a Code of Ethics.

I try to be an honorable metal detectorist. I'm not perfect, but this is what honor means to me. I always try to know the law. I do not knowingly trespass or hunt sites without permission. I respect locked gates and fences.

I honor my metal detecting friends by not hunting sites they have discovered or shared with me (public or private) without their knowledge or consent. I try to teach and help others learn the hobby and pass along what I have learned.

I use the best retrieval techniques I can. I try to dig neatly and leave little evidence I have metal detected a place. I take my trash with me and fill my holes, even on the beach. If I can do something simple to make it better than when I arrived, I will.

I am polite and courteous. If I am asked to leave a site, I will do so without quarrel, even if I know I am doing no wrong. If I have inadvertently trespassed, I apologize and do what I can to make things right.

Public perception is powerful. If we are seen as looters, thieves, liars, grave robbers and trespassers we will lose access to the sites we depend on for our hobby. Negative stereotypes, once formed are difficult to overcome.

Honorable detecting and good etiquette is what will make it possible for us to continue to enjoy our hobby. Dishonorable detecting will close sites to all of us. I urge you to do the best you can, be an honorable detectorist and a credit to the hobby.

YES!If you are serious about finding old coins in hunted out sites the Minelab Explorer or E-Trac are what you need.I've been detecting for 19 years, so I'm old school (though not as old as some) and new school.My first machine was a White's Classic II.I was swinging Fisher CZs for years and finding a few silver coins - maybe 10-20 per year.Last year with the Explorer, I got 51 silver.This year I have 127 silver coins in about 3 months of digging.The majority of these are from the same sites I have been hitting for years.

If you look at the people who are serious about silver and finding 100+ silver coins in hunted out

Cleaning modern coins to make them "spendable" again is best done with a rock tumbler. Water, soap, gravel and coins go in for a few hours and come out presentable enough to be acceptable. Harbor Freight offers an inexpensive and effective rock tumbler that works well, provided you take some common-sense care in using it. The weak point in the design of this tumbler is the belt, but following these tips below will help your tumbler run better and your motor and belt last longer.

The original belt should last quite a while if it is adjusted properly and you are not overloading the tumbler. In a pinch "standard" size 1/4" wide rubber bands work as belts too, but long term use of them can damage the plastic pulleys.

Make sure you adjust the spacing of the two pulleys (yes, this is adjustable) to be just enough that the belt is not too loose (i.e. it just catches). This keeps the belt at the right tension and not too tight. If it is too tight it will work, but it will stress the belt.

Don't overload the tumbler. It is rated for 3#. If you are filling it to the brim with coins, rocks and water it is too full and too heavy. This stresses the motor and the belt. Ideally the tumbler should be no more than 1/2 full of rocks and coins and no more than 3/4 full when you add water. Besides saving the motor and the belt life, a properly loaded (not overloaded) tumbler works better and faster at cleaning your coins as the material has room to move around in the drum.

Replacement belts can be located cheaply on eBay and are typically as good or better than the original belt. Many rock shops and lapidary stores sell them in retail stores and online too.

Secret #1 - Minelab Explorer or E-Trac. I have never found as much silver as I have with Minelab machines. It's unreal what I've literally walked over for years with other machines. If you look at the serious hunters who find tons of old coins in hunted out parks 9 times out of 10 they have Explorers. In my first 15 or so years of detecting I found 200 silver coins. In the past two years with Minelab machines I have found 150, from the SAME sites I was hitting years ago.

Secret #2 - Go slow, be patient, take a deep breath, keep your overlap tight and listen for every beep.

First of all, you need to choose a machine that you are comfortable with. Weight, handle/grips, shaft angles, buttons and switches. This is a good reason to find a local dealer or visit your nearest detecting club to actually have a hands on experience. Sure we can learn and adapt to a lot of things, but if the machine is uncomfortable we're probably not going to use it, or put in the time needed to master it.Are there features you can't live without? Most new detectors are pretty well equipped with options, so they are fairly adaptable. There are also some unique features or aftermarket accessories for specific machines that might be a "must have" for you.Air tests or depth tests don't mean much in evaluating a detector. These tests can provide some information, but where the rubber meets the road is not depth, but ID accuracy in the ground. Getting a deep signal means nothing if the signal doesn't sound like it's worth digging. Most of us are not digging everything under the coil, but trying to be selective and dig the "good" targets.A non-biased scientific "Consumer Reports" style air test comparison of detectors would be of little use to me in selecting a machine, but on the other hand, seeing someone pull a Seated Liberty dime and a Shield nickel out of a park - right in front of me - in an area I had hunted hard and repeatedly speaks volumes.

I'd rather have a detector that only had 6" depth but would nail the ID on old coins and trash in almost any hunting condition. I'd be bringing home handfuls of silver and other obsolete coins every hunt. Once mastered, the E-Trac is pretty close to this ideal for me, but gets even more depth. Even better would be a detector that had less accurate ID but a true surface blanking - ignore the top 3-4" and only signal on targets over 4" deep.

All the evidence I need as to what detector is the "best" is in the online metal detecting forums. Look at the various finds posted on the different forums. Look what machines are making the best finds, the oldest finds, the deepest finds in your area and hunting conditions. Consistently, you'll see the same few machines as clear winners for what you want to find in your area in your preferred hunting conditions. Look at the machines the tot-lot hunters prefer, beach hunters, relic hounds and look at what machines people who consider themselves "pros" prefer. Price is always a consideration. For your first detector, go cheap - but not too cheap. Stick with well known manufacturers, each of them offers an entry level machine, usually between the $100 and $200 price point. I do not recommend that beginners start with a top of the line machine, you can, but I've seen these $1000+ purchases often end in headaches and frustration. If you can get a good used machine, that's a great option. You'll need to use your detector and find out if the hobby is for you. Seems like people either take to it like a duck to water or get quickly discouraged. If you discover you love the hobby, it won't take you long to want to upgrade that machine, but you'll also have a better idea of what specific kind of detector you want. Fortunately there is a good resale market for good entry level machines, though you may also want to keep that first detector as a backup unit...just in case.

I wrote the following response to the post below on the TreasureNet forum.

"Well ive noticed latly when you call a detector company like fisher minelab tesoro.They usually have one guy runing the teck support wich is pathetic. And by the time you get a hold of him for a question about your detector he doesnt now the answer.Most of the time there out on call wich makes no sense.How can companys like Minelab & fisher have one guy for teck support thats never there? And buy the time you get a hold of him its like your speaken fricken chinese to the guy? Seems like these companys manny times just sell there product and God forbid you ever have a question are problem with the detector. There like some company in China one guy answering the phone selling the product and runing the company all at the same time. Common companys get your sht together. Sorry guys just teed off when companys that make money pull these cheap labor tactics."

Running my own business I can tell you people want lots of service and the lowest price. It's not

I am curious as to why dug indian heads and early wheats come out of the ground with such nice green patina. It's too much for me to believe this is just chance that coins after the mid-1920's do not exhibit this patination. Two cent pieces minted from 1864 to 1872 also have these same characteristics.

I believe the answer lies in the "5% tin and zinc" content of bronze cents. I cannot find a reference to the specific percentages of zinc and tin used. Sometime in the early 1920s, the percentage of zinc must have been increased and tin decreased. I can find no reference to this change, but I would be very interested in finding one.

Tin is a key element in bronze. The properties of tin state that it is not easily oxidized, prevents corrosion, resists corrosion from water, but can be attacked by acids, alkalis and acid salts. These are exactly the properties that would make the early cents better preserved than the later ones.

Anyone who has dug an eaten up modern penny knows how zinc weathers in the ground. So, this also indicates that an increase in zinc would make the surfaces more easily corroded.

Follow up #1The composition is the "same" only to the extent that it is "5% tin and zinc" this is a vague reference. I can find no references that specify the specific percentages of tin and zinc.

My theory is the older "green" cents are maybe 3% tin and 2% zinc and the non-green are maybe 1% tin and 4% zinc.

It has little to do with the time in the ground, as these earlier cents even read differently on the meter of many metal detectors, which says to me that it is clear there is some difference in metallic content. The conductive value of older cents on the Minelab E-Trac is 33-36, the conductive value of later cents is 42-43. And this can be shown in the ground and in air tests with dug and non-dug coins, so the time in the ground is not significant.

Follow up #2Well, the minerals or ground effect only prevent the green patination from forming or eat it away. If the soil is "acid, alkali or contains acid salts" then the tin will be attacked and the coin will have a rough corroded surface.

Where the soil is fairly neutral, the tin provides some protection against corrosion. There is some oxidation/corrosion occurring in the ground as that is what makes the cent turn green.

My hypothesis is a greater amount of tin in the mix helps keep the surfaces smooth and even, preventing (in more neutral soils) the rough or heavy corrosion as seen in many copper coins recovered from fertilized farm fields.

I find that in my soil, which is fairly stable and neutral that older small cents tend to have this smooth patination. Coins that have been fertilized or are in clay type soil do not. Even modern coins in clay type soil are heavy corroded.

Overall I guess my question is not, "Why do they turn green?" but rather, why are the early cents so much better preserved than later cents when supposedly the metals are the same. I am saying is the metals must not really be the same, and the ratios of tin to zinc within that 5% have been altered.

Another random thought is wondering if the addition of tin to the copper coating on modern zinc pennies would improve their corrosion resistance. Hmm...

Follow up #3 Wikipedia shed some light on some things:

Brass is any alloy of copper and zinc; the proportions of zinc and copper can be varied to create a range of brasses with varying properties. In comparison, bronze is principally an alloy of copper and tin.

Aluminium makes brass stronger and more corrosion resistant. Aluminium also causes a highly beneficial hard layer of aluminium oxide (Al2O3) to be formed on the surface that is thin, transparent and self healing. Tin has a similar effect and finds its use especially in sea water applications (naval brasses). Combinations of iron, aluminium, silicon and manganese make brass wear and tear resistant. A well known alloy used in the automotive industry is 'LDM C673', where the combination of manganese and silicon leads to a strong and resistant brass.

Selective leaching, also called dealloying, demetalification, parting and selective corrosion, is a corrosion type in some solid solution alloys, when in suitable conditions a component of the alloys is preferentially leached from the material. The less noble metal is removed from the alloy by microscopic-scale galvanic corrosion mechanism. The most susceptible alloys are the ones containing metals with high distance between each other in the galvanic series, eg. copper and zinc in brass.

Follow up #4 I discovered this text from Jevon's 1875 book, Money and the Mechanism of Exchange:"

Bronze Coin. XI.11 It was known, even in prehistoric times, that a small quantity of tin communicated hardness to copper, and the ancient nations were familiar with the use of bronze thus manufactured. The French Revolutionary Government melted up the bells of the churches seized by them, and the sous de cloche,as they were called, made from the bell metal, were superior to coins of pure copper. Yet curiously enough no modern government thought of employing a well-chosen bronze for small money, until the government of the late Emperor of the French undertook the recoinage of the old sous in 1852. This recoinage was carried out with great success.

XI.12 Between the years 1853 and 1867 coins to the nominal value of about two millions sterling, consisting of 800 millions of pieces, and weighing eleven millions of kilograms (10,826 tons) were struck, in addition to a subsequent issue of about 200 millions of pieces. The experiment was in almost every way successful. The ten and five-centime pieces now circulating in France are models of good minting, with a low but sharp and clear impression. They were readily accepted by the people, although only weighing as much as the sous rejected in the time of the Revolution, namely, one gram per centime, and they are wearing well.

XI.13 The bronze used consists of 95 parts of copper, four of tin, and one of zinc. It is much harder than copper, yet so tough and impressible that it takes a fine impression from the dies, and retains it for a long time. It cannot be struck except by a press of some power, and thus counterfeiting is rendered almost impossible. It can hardly be said to corrode by exposure to air or damp, and merely acquires a natural patina, or thin dark film of copper oxide, which throws the worn parts of the design into relief, and increases the beauty of the coin.

XI.14 Bronze has since been coined by the governments of England, the United States, Italy, and Sweden, and it seems probable that it will entirely take the place of copper. The German government is now using bronze for the one-pfennig pieces."

My conclusions drawn from this: Bronze for coins was a new idea in 1852. The specific formula is listed as containing 4% tin and 1% zinc. This is most likely the formula used in the first Indian head cents in 1864, as this new bronze alloy would have proven itself with use in Europe. This supports my contention that the earlier cents have a higher (4%) tin content, and that is why they corrode less and maintain smooth green surfaces. We know that the tin was removed from cents completely in 1962, but I contend the amount of tin was reduced before 1962.

Domestic and foreign coins manufactured by mints of the United States (1965) states: "Alloy of 95% copper and 5% zinc coined 1944-46 by order of Secretary of the Treasury of Dec. 16, 1943, pursuant to act of Dec. 18, 1942."

According to the same document above, the US mint was producing bronze coins for other countries. In 1917-1919 the US mint produced coins for containing 95% copper, 3% tin and 2% zinc for Peru. In the early twenties, coins were minted containing 95% copper, 1% tin and 4% zinc as early as 1921 (Indo-China) and 1922 (Costa Rica). In 1942, coins made for Surinam were 95% copper, 1% tin and 4% zinc. It would seem odd that they would create a unique alloy for these small runs of foreign coins rather than use the "stock" US bronze alloy.

*In testing wheat cents with a metal detector, the majority of coins having a arbitrary numerical CO value of 36-41 or were minted before 1942. Almost all coins minted 1944 and after had CO values of 42-44. From this interpretation the early 1920s coins may have been somewhat experimental or perhaps normal variations in batch consistency, and the reduction to 1% tin did not occur until 1947.Follow up #5 (October 1, 2013)

I discovered a reference to the composition of the two cent pieces which exhibit similar characteristics to the early small cents. 'In a Dec. 8, 1863 letter from Mint Director James Pollock to Secretary of the Treasury Salmon P. Chase, the Mint director recommended a 2-cent coin be introduced in what was called “French bronze.”'

According to wikipedia, French bronze is a form of bronze typically consisting of 91% copper, 2% tin, 6% zinc, and 1% lead.

First portion of The Coinage Act of April 22, 1864

Canadian CentsCanadian cents both large and small also display some of the same attractive smooth green patination as early American small cents. The Canadians were more forthcoming in the specific content of their alloy. From 1876 to 1941, their cents were minted from 95.5% copper, 3% tin and 1.5% zinc.